Instigator / Pro
McMieky's avatar
0
McMieky
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#5918

Should the death penalty be abolished?

Status
Voting

The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

Voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Tags
death
jail
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Twelve hours
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
MAV99's avatar
0
MAV99
1500
rating
4
debates
50.0%
won
Description

No information

Round 1
McMieky's avatar
McMieky
Pro
#1
Thanks Mav99 for accepting this debate.

The death penalty is violation of fundamental right of humans. governmental policy
that allows countries to take another human life raises ethical questions about the
equivalence of life taking and crime prevention.


Also, many countries have don't have the death penalty anymore, realizing that it is immorally
wrong.

Many wrong convictions happen and have gotten people killed. But the existence of the
death penalty makes risk of executing an innocent person and irreversible and wrongful
death. And later on, when technology gets better, they figure out that the person was
innocent and nothing happen people just protest and the government does nothing. This
highlights the flaws in the failing of the legal system.

Studies find out that the death penalty does not do much for stopping crime. In fact,
many sats with the death penalty have more violent crime compared to those without.
Life imprisonment without parole have equal effective to the death penalty.

Data consistently show that the death is applied to people who are poor or are a minority,
This shows systemic biases within the judicial system, so is the death penalty even fair?

MAV99's avatar
MAV99
Con
#2
Thank you McMieky for this debate. I do find this debate to be a very interesting topic.

To start off this debate I will present my own argument for why the death penalty should not be abolished and then I will address Pro's arguments.

Firstly I do not hold that one is entitled absolutely to life but rather has a duty to live. This difference lies in the fact that at times killing is justified. Such as in self defense or a war. Now obviously this debate is not about those things, so I am not making a comparison to those. I am practically showing how life is something we have a duty to perform, yet we are not entitled to it absolutely. Obviously we are entitled to life insofar as we are fulfilling the duty to live, hence why it is not absolute. If it was, killing someone in self defense would be morally wrong. But, and this will be the major premise to my argument, if one fails, in certain ways, in the duty to live properly he forfeits the entitlement to that life and the duty attached to it since these "certain ways" are directly contrary to the duty of the individual to the common good of society.

The next question of course is, what are these certain ways in which one loses the entitlement to life and the duty attached to it?

To answer this, it is important to understand that Man by his nature is a social creature. We form societies and our role in it is to freely give to the common good of that society in whatsoever way according to our capabilities. There are two ways to fail in this regard: Indirect and direct hindrances.

Indirect hindrance to this common good is a common thing and part of what it means to be human. So being homeless, or not willing to get a job, or littering or other minor offenses do not justify the death penalty, since they are indirect hindrances.

Direct hindrances must be separated into two parts, malicious and  unintended.

Unintended direct hindrances do not justify the death penalty because they are of a nature that while the common good is harmed there is no intent to do the harm to the common good itself or to be a direct threat to it. So for example, a person who is a one time murderer, who murdered the man who stole his money and then his wife and his house all just because he hated him, does not deserve the death penalty because he does not intend harm the common good itself nor is he a threat to it, but simply acted out of an unjustified revenge to one person.

Now malicious direct hindrances are of the nature that one does harm the common good with the intent to harm it and/or is a direct threat to it. Some crimes are of such a nature that it takes much premeditated thought and preparation order to perform the crime that, at best, they are a real threat to society and its members. Such an example would be of what some have called "Anarchist crime." Anarchist crime is any crime that intends to do direct harm to an established society with the intent to harm it. So, an anarchist who works secretly to undermine the economy, authority of the government, and the well being of the common good simply because he hates the order of society is a direct threat to the stability and duty of all members of that society to live well and hence does deserve the death penalty. Exile would not do justice to this crime, since by exile he would presumably be integrated into a different society which he is a threat to by his set will on being an anarchist. This is in fact considered one of the worst evils one can do because it demonstrates a hatred for the way Man is.

Other Malicious direct hindrances can include: serial killers: because they are direct threats to members of society. Active pedophiles: Because they are a threat to the young members of society. (obviously, having the disorder of the mind to be sexually attracted to children does not deserve the death penalty since there is no intent there). Active/ serial rapists: They are a threat to the foundation of society, which is marriage and the family. 

Any of the above crimes committed once does not constitute the death penalty but rather the crimes repeated . How many offences before the death penalty is deserved is dependent on circumstances and the individual cases.

In light of the above said, The death penalty should not be abolished.


Now I will address pro's arguments:
The death penalty is violation of fundamental right of humans. governmental policy
that allows countries to take another human life raises ethical questions about the
equivalence of life taking and crime prevention.
 The fundamental rights of humans are those things to which we have the duty to do or have, based on the nature of man. Dying is natural to man so life is only a fundamental right under the light of the fact that we will die. This means there ought to be times when life is laid down for the greater good. If it is done nobly as a soldier for his country, they ought to be given the greatest honor and respect. If it has to be done because one is a direct threat to society, it ought to be done humanely and not publicly. (legal witnesses are obvious exceptions)

Also, many countries have don't have the death penalty anymore, realizing that it is immorally
wrong.
this is not a very good argument as it could mean that there are countries that have it wrong.

Many wrong convictions happen and have gotten people killed. But the existence of the
death penalty makes risk of executing an innocent person and irreversible and wrongful
death. And later on, when technology gets better, they figure out that the person was
innocent and nothing happen people just protest and the government does nothing. This
highlights the flaws in the failing of the legal system.
This is an unfortunate truth, but one that stems from human failure, not the existence of the death penalty itself.

Studies find out that the death penalty does not do much for stopping crime. In fact,
many sats with the death penalty have more violent crime compared to those without.
Life imprisonment without parole have equal effective to the death penalty.
If the purpose of the death penalty was to set an example only, then yes, I would abolish it. But the main purpose of the death penalty is to rid society of a constant threat to it. If there is the side effect that it makes people think twice, cool.

Data consistently show that the death is applied to people who are poor or are a minority,
This shows systemic biases within the judicial system, so is the death penalty even fair?
I would like to have a reference to this if possible as I am sure I would find it very interesting. But simply looking at this quote, I do not see how, simply because it has been applied more to poor or minority, this shows a systemic bias. I think I need further explanation on that.
Round 2
McMieky's avatar
McMieky
Pro
#3
Forfeited
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
Con
#4
Extended
Round 3
McMieky's avatar
McMieky
Pro
#5
Thank you Mav99, I'll summarize my points and talk about the weaknesses in your
stance.

1. Death Penalty and Human Rights
Your claim that life is not an absolute right but a duty that can be forfeited
is a subjective framework that doesn't justify the nature of the death penalty.
Take for example self defense, where the immediate threat necessitates action,
the death penalty is premeditated and not essential for protecting society when
life imprisonment without parole is another option.

2. Risk of Wrongful Execution
You acknowledged that wrongful executions happen but said there just
"Human Errors." This is the problem. No system is infallible, and the death penalty
creates the potential for irreversible damage by killing innocent people. The risk
alone is sufficient reason to abolish it. But life sentencing allows for corrections
if new evidence comes out, while the death penalty eliminates this possibility
permanently.

3.Ineffectiveness as a Deterrent
You said the death penalty isn't about deterrence but removing a threat from
society. But studies consistently show that states without the death penalty do
not experience higher crime. Life imprisonment is equally effective in removing
"threats" while avoiding executions. If deterrence isn't the goal, then the
justification for such and extreme and irreversible punishment is weakened.

4. Systemic Bias
You Requested further evidence from me of systemic bias, so let me show it.
Data consistently shows that minorities and the poor are disproportionately
sentenced to the death penalty. Example, In the U.S, individuals convicted of
killing "white" victims are far more likely to receive the death penalty than
those who kill "minorities." This isn't just a coincidence it reveals inequalities
in the justice system. If the penalty is biased, it cannot be considered fair
can it.

5. Alternatives to the Death Penalty
You argue that certain crimes, like anarchist and serial crimes, pose a direct
threat to society. But life imprisonment without parole achieves the same goal
removing the threat without having to murder anyone and crossing the moral and
ethical lines. The fact that many countries have abolished the death penalty
without facing societal collapse shows my point.

Final Thoughts
The death penalty is outdated and ineffective. its irreversible nature, risk of
wrongful execution, systemic biases, and lack of necessity all point to its
abolition.

Thank you for this debate Mav99 and i encourage you to consider the broader
implications such a flawed and dangerous practice

MAV99's avatar
MAV99
Con
#6
Thank you McMieky for your response! 

I will simply address Pro's arguments as he has stated them in the last round.

Your claim that life is not an absolute right but a duty that can be forfeited
is a subjective framework that doesn't justify the nature of the death penalty.
I am not exactly sure what Pro is saying here. The framework which I gave for this is actually determined by the nature of man and is therefore far from subjective. What exactly is "the nature of the death penalty" that Pro has put forward is unclear to me. To me the nature of the death penalty is a very serious punishment for very serious and inexcusable crimes. 

You acknowledged that wrongful executions happen but said there just
"Human Errors." This is the problem. No system is infallible, and the death penalty
creates the potential for irreversible damage by killing innocent people. The risk
alone is sufficient reason to abolish it.
I will actually disagree that the risk involved is sufficient by itself to abolish the death penalty. Remember this debate is about the death penalty itself, not necessarily the crimes that deserve it. That could be a different debate. It is true that no system is infallible, but that does not justify to throw out the system. First off, like I said above, the crimes need to be repeated (obviously with conviction in court) to even remotely deserve the death penalty. So there is less risk in the giving of the death penalty as I have demonstrated it. Obviously there might be States that have extreme laws that are unreasonable that give too quickly the death penalty but that does not invalidate my arguments or those who do have reasonable laws regarding the giving of the death penalty.

But studies consistently show that states without the death penalty do
not experience higher crime. 
Once I again, there is no reference for this, so I will repeat my point that they could be wrong or the study is perhaps missing something.

Data consistently shows that minorities and the poor are disproportionately
sentenced to the death penalty. 
Ok, I don't know if you know how references work, but simply saying that "data says this" is not giving a reference. It would be best if you gave a link or something. The fact that it is minorities or poor people does not mean the system is targeting them, just because they are poor or a minority. Unless you can prove that, it is a far reaching claim that at best is a conspiracy theory.

But life imprisonment without parole achieves the same goal
removing the threat without having to murder anyone and crossing the moral and
ethical lines. 
The problem with life imprisonment is that these violent criminals are now a direct threat to other prisoners including ones who may have the opportunity to reenter society. Solitary confinement is a worse punishment than death due to the nature of man to be social. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/12/08/solitary_symposium/
This link shows that it has devasting effects that would at best make the person inept to live well afterwards which is a worse crime because we would be the cause of disposing them to continue to commit other crimes, possibly violent that may unfortunately end in suicide.

The fact that many countries have abolished the death penalty
without facing societal collapse shows my point.
I am not saying abolishing the death penalty would collapse society. And the fact that many countries have abolished it ( I would like a reference to that in the comments if possible) does not mean that it should be abolished everywhere.

Thank you so much for the debate! I very much enjoyed it!